Michigan Redneck II

Where Politics and Rockabilly Become Strangely Fused

Drew Peterson is Officially a Sociopath

Still working on genealogy. I figure I sure keep this site uptodate with current events. Can’t get my mind out of Will County;

Drew Peterson pleads not guilty to murdering wife

After his plea, prosecutors asked that Judge Richard Schoenstedt be removed from Peterson’s case, citing “grounds of prejudice against the state.”

Former Bolingbrook, Ill., police officer Drew Peterson, rear, departs the Will AP – Former Bolingbrook, Ill., police officer Drew Peterson, rear, departs the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, …

CHICAGO – Former police officer Drew Peterson pleaded not guilty Monday to killing his third wife, whose death was reclassified as a homicide after the suburban officer’s fourth wife disappeared. Peterson, who has been jailed since May 7, was formally arraigned on first-degree murder charges in the 2004 slaying of Kathleen Savio.

A prosecution bid to change the judge in the proceeding stalled a defense plan to seek reduced bail for Peterson.

Peterson is accused of drowning Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub with a gash on the back of her head. Her death initially was ruled an accident. But after Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared in 2007, Savio’s body was exhumed and authorities reclassified her death as a homicide after an autopsy.

Peterson, 55, has denied any involvement in Savio’s death or Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

After his plea, prosecutors asked that Judge Richard Schoenstedt be removed from Peterson’s case, citing “grounds of prejudice against the state.”

more here

What is Illinois’  stance on the death penalty?  Can we just drown him in a dry bathtub?  But first, he needs to confess as to where Stacy Peterson is.  Maybe waterboard it out of him?

May 18, 2009 - Posted by michiganredneck | Scary People | , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

20 Comments »

  1. Does the mustachioed appearance make him guilty of murder? It surely cannot be the evidence.

    Comment by michellefrommadison | May 19, 2009 | Reply

  2. There is no evidence released that indicates even a remote-possibility that Drew is a sociopath, perhaps the person that made that claim is uneducated, yet making diagnosis’s to things they know nothing about. :)

    Comment by michellefrommadison | May 19, 2009 | Reply

  3. Oh, I am educated. Part of blogging is being fun and silly and making fun and silly subject posts. Anyone who laughs like a crazy man as he is being led into the jail and make stupid comments about his clothes is anti-social and sociopathic. Anyone who wants to cash in on his infamous fame of having a dead wife and a missing wife who is probably dead, by working on a reality show at a whorehouse is a sociopath. Are you Michelle Raines? Or are you hoping to take her place?

    Comment by michiganredneck | May 19, 2009 | Reply

    • Part of blogging is being fun and silly and making fun and silly subject posts. Anyone who laughs like a crazy man as he (Drew) is being led into the jail and makes stupid comments about his clothes is not anti-social or sociopathic, at least according to the definitions of those terms. Drew Peterson has never made any indications that he desires to cash in on his infamous fame of having a dead wife and a missing wife who is probably dead, by working on a reality show at a whorehouse as he is a likely not sociopath if you apply the context of actual Psychological terms, at least according to educated-people who exlain reality to those that post false assertions and opinions on blogs like this one. But, everyone can‘t understand Law, Psychology, and the criminal justice system, hence, so many corrections to those arm-chair-quarterbacks who are still way out there in left-field. But, us successful-educated people can only help so many of them. Thanks for proving me correct, there michiganredneck. :)

      Comment by michellefrommadison | May 20, 2009 | Reply

  4. Can’t be a sociopath without a diagnosis, at least in a court of Law. But many uneducated people wrongly believe he is a sociopath, which proves nothing except their lack of knowledge of the subject.

    Comment by michellefrommadison | May 21, 2009 | Reply

    • OMG….

      I Googled definition of sociopath, I guess I am seriously bored. Pretty interesting stuff. Here is the link, http://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+a+sociopath&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA. Just because someone has not been diaganosed as a sociopath, does not mean they are not. Just like a person who is not in AA does not mean they are not an alcoholic. If a person has cancer but has not been diagonosed, does that mean they do not have cancer? The city of Pompeii existed and was destroyed from volcano explosion. Archeologists found it thousands of years later. Does that mean the city never existed until archeologists found it?

      Anyhoo, I have seen your father and uncle interviewed on Nancy Grace and Gretta VanSustren. I hope and pray they can get to you before it is too late.

      Comment by michiganredneck | May 22, 2009 | Reply

  5. Googleing does not replace a diagnosis of that definition of sociopath, except in the boggersphere-world, as so demonstrated by the previous post. But, that’s why degrees and professional licenses require qualified educations, which is lacking from the previous poster. :)

    Comment by michellefrommadison | May 22, 2009 | Reply

    • I agree. No one can diagnose anything by Googling. But they can learn. The interwebs are full of all kindsa information.

      I never said that I was officially diagnosing Drew Peterson. Life is all about perception. If you were at a store and some guy ran through the aisles naked screaming everyone would look at each other and say that guy is crazy. You would not need some fancy degree to make that perception.

      But seriously, you should get your own blog where you can be as serious as you desire and talk about why you think Drew Peterson is normal, innocent and why you may want to marry him.

      Comment by michiganredneck | May 22, 2009 | Reply

  6. Of course Drew Peterson IS a typical sociopath, whomever does not agree with this public diagnosis -is either a sociopath himself and in denial. Any con-man is sociopath, any child abuser-sexual or not is a sociopath, any fraudulent activities are performed by sociopaths. Lack of commiseration- there is a new word for you- is a sign of sociopaths. Some times physical damage in the frontal lobe would cause sociopathic symptoms on these cases, the cells can be retrained to feel empathy, sometimes the damage is so severe, the personality of a frontal head-injury victim might change and appear non-caring. The cells which promote sympathy are located at the frontal lobe and their messages are sent out by the corpus collosum.

    Comment by rivirivi | May 22, 2009 | Reply

    • Thank you for a voice of reason. I was about ready to close comments to this post. Really there is no convincing michellefrommadison.

      Comment by michiganredneck | May 22, 2009 | Reply

  7. Thanks MRN for proving my points about uneducated people once again, and you are welcome for the lesson, no charge. :)

    Comment by michellefrommadison | May 22, 2009 | Reply

    • Your “points” have not been proven. At first, I thought maybe you were Michelle Haines. But now, I think there is a chance you could also be his attorney Joel Brodsky. The only possible people who would keep coming to this blog and yammering about having to have a fancy degree to be able to know whether or not someone is a sociopath would be his attorney or girlfriend.
      If you are his girlfriend, what will it take to see the light and finally leave? I feel sorry for you and I do not want to drive you closer to the arms of Drew Peterson. I would like to see driven out of his arms. Remember, once convicted and sent to prison, he will receive stacks of letters from “admirers.”

      Comment by michiganredneck | May 22, 2009 | Reply

  8. Again, MRN, you again proved my points about uninformed and uneducated people making comments about things they obviously do not fully understand, and you are welcome for that. No charge. :)

    Comment by michellefrommadison | May 23, 2009 | Reply

    • michellefrommadison,

      I am not sure what your point is for keep coming back here to comment. If you are truly for Drew’s innocence, then I think the best place to state your case online is one of the Chicago Tribune articles on the case. They have way more readers than I. There are lots of people making comments on the articles. Comment there. You will reach out to more people there. Til then, I will not allow any of your comments to post until you can say something of substance. I am not being mean. This is the first step. After that, I will block you from commenting. If that still doesn’t work, then I will block all comments for this post.

      I am not sure what your connection to Drew is, but whatever it may be, the best thing you can do for him is talk to his attorneys and do whatever they ask.

      Comment by michiganredneck | May 23, 2009 | Reply

      • Who (informed) could ever be for Drew’s innocence as you claim MRN?

        Comment by michellefrommadison | May 23, 2009 | Reply

  9. No, but you’re the only one claiming Drew is innocent MRN, re-read your posts. :)

    Comment by michellefrommadison | May 24, 2009 | Reply

    • I do not need to re-read my posts to know what I have said. I have put it all out there for everyone to read that I think Drew Peterson is a smarmy criminal. I am so sorry that you assumed that when I called Drew Peterson a sociopath I was calling him a big lovable teddybear.

      A Google search has shown that you have some sort of weird stalking crush on Nancy Grace.

      ‘Til you can state as to why you care enough about Drew Peterson to keep on coming back to this and other blogs about the Peterson case, no more comments from you will be allowed to post. Also, I am guessing that someone is paying you to sit by your computer 24/7 to trash on Nancy Grace and defend Drew Peterson, along with other creepy criminals. Bye-bye!

      Comment by michiganredneck | May 24, 2009 | Reply

  10. Michelle makes the same comments in regards to the Casey Anthony case, the Duckett case, the Holloway case, the Duke lacrosse team case, anything that Nancy Grace has reported on. I’m sure since you googled her, you know what I’m talking about. As a matter of fact, that’s how I came upon your blog, by googling her screen name. She claims to advocate victims rights, yet when all the evidence is in front of her, proving the guilt of said parties, she will always take the opposing side. Talk about uneducated! She has been banned from most of the crime blogs I follow.

    Comment by mixologist74 | June 4, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment